| From: | Conor Kerr |
| Date: | 6 May 2000 at 14:00:09 |
| Subject: | Re: Goal (was Re: AA8) |
Hi Neil,
> While the charities are ethical, and their goal laudable, the ads are
> often just the opposite. Because they are trying to help people instead
> of make a profit, they can often get away with worse than a commercial
> company.
Define "worse" in this context.
> It's often a case of the agency asking "how much emotional blackmail
> can we get away with?"
I can see how you would think that but I don't think ANY of the ads overstep
the boundaries. Rather than being "emotional blackmail" I think that the
points and appeals they make are the definition of reason. That is, it's
unreasonable not to support many of these causes even if that means making
your life a little less comfortable.
Almost everyone I know, just because they can't see them, forgets that they
are suffering. I'm not saying that everyone doesn't care/know, just that
everyone forgets. I do quite a bit as well, but I try hard not to. 25,000
kids die a day from hunger and poverty. I don't think we have the right to
ignore even one of them.
Not that I'm saying you are, of course, you understand that that's not
directed toward you. I completely disagree with your comment about
emotional blackmail though.
All the best..
Conor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:
http://click.egroups.com/1/3555/3/_/468125/_/957617909/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails